1 / 16

Theme 2 – From policy to impact

This study explores the relationship between land use change (LUC) models and their impact on ecosystem services in the Amazon. It contrasts international and regional factors affecting LUC, incorporating stakeholder inputs and projections from models like LuccME and DGVM. The analysis reveals challenges in previous modeling efforts and emphasizes the necessity for innovative frameworks to capture the complexities of land use dynamics. Key focus areas include the effectiveness of protected areas, credit access, and the projected consequences of various deforestation scenarios up to 2100.

nyla
Télécharger la présentation

Theme 2 – From policy to impact

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Theme 2 – From policy to impact Celso von Randow, Ana Paula Aguiar, Kirsten Thonicke, EloiDalla-Nora, Dorian Frieden, + DGVM groups

  2. Outline • Introduction: LUC modeling approaches, international vs regional factors • LuccME projections: inputs from stakeholders; qualitative effects of international policies (e.g. biofuel targets) • DGVM runs • Analysis of impacts on provision of ecosystem services

  3. General structure of LUC models • Despite the diversity of land use models found in the literature it is possible to identify a common functional structure that is valid for most of the available cases; Dalla-Nora et al., (no prelo)

  4. LUC MODELS FOR THE AMAZON 2020 2020 2050 Aguiar et al., 2006 Lauranceet al., 2001 Lapolaet al., 2011 2050 2030 Soares-Filho et al., 2006 Nepstadet al., 2008

  5. Quantity of change in LUC models • None of the previous studies were able to plausibly capture the general trajectory of land cover change observed in this region during the last decade; Dalla-Nora et al., (no prelo)

  6. Model results and Amazon LUC dynamics • If Amazon deforestation was a result of price movements, we would expect that the slowdown in deforestation would be conjunctural and temporary; Dalla-Nora et al., (no prelo)

  7. Model results and Amazon LUC dynamics • Protected areas (PAs) • 240 new PAs from 2004 • +65% over 2000-2004 • 55% of the remaining forests. • Credit access • All lines of rural credit • -65% (all rural municipalities) • -77% (MT, PA, RO) • Command and control • Monitoring and enforcement • +8.823 fines • 70 times more over 2000-2004 Dalla-Nora et al., (no prelo)

  8. Model results and Amazon LUC dynamics • Previous modeling studies were not able to integrate the global and regional forces that shape land use dynamics in the Amazon; • Scenarios' formulation was also quite simplistic which compromised their ability to explore contrasting pathways; • It's necessary to adopt an innovative modeling framework to represent land use systems as open systems;

  9. MAGNET global model Amountofchange Global: population, GDP andproductiongrowth + biofuelstargets Regional: roads, protectedareas, credit LUCCME Demand (scenarios) Stakeholder Storylinesandcontrasting rates ofchange SpatialPatterns LUCCME Potential/Allocation (scenarios) Visions – Stakeholder inputs Regional: roads, protectedareas, lawenforcement Biophisical, socioeconomicandinstitutionalfactorsaffectthe DemandandAllocation

  10. Premises • Scenario C • 19500 km2yr-1 (until 2100) • (ave 1996-2005) • Scenario B: • 3900 km2 in 2020 • (20% 19500 km2) • Scenario A: • “Zero” • Deforestation • Scenario D? 10000km2

  11. (A) Scenario A: Deforestation in 2050 (B) Scenario B: Deforestation in 2050 (C) Scenario C: Deforestation in 2050 (D) Scenario A: Secondary Vegetation in 2050 (E) Scenario B: Secondary Vegetation in 2050 (F) Scenario C: Secondary Vegetation in 2050 (G) Scenario A: Agriculture in 2050 (H) Scenario B: Agriculture in 2050 (I) Scenario C: Agriculture in 2050

  12. DGVM runs Yearlyanomaliesintermodelcomparison

  13. Use DGVM results in quantifyingchanges in ESS provision Kirsten Thonicke, Alice Boit, Fanny Langerwisch, Anja Rammig, Ariane Walz PIK Potsdam

  14. Make selection of 3-5 Ecosystem Services carbon storage in t C= VegC + LitterC + Soilc NEPin t C= NPP-rh-fire-harvest-deforested over all pftsandcfts Global Climate Regulation Which DGVM otherthanLPJmLcanprovidebasin-widedata? accessibility = numberofmonthwithsufficientdischargeforshipping (toOpidos) rainwaterrecyclingin mm/m2 = transpirationover all PFTs in naturalvegetation (andcfts?) Regional Climate Regulation Accessibility (Obidos) areaofdegraded ES in natureconservationareas = conservationarea – areaswithdecreasebyone „degradationclass“ Area withecosystemsofintegrity t ofwoodextractablewithroadextention = C in woodbiomass Potential Timber Extraction Overlaywithcurrentshape-files ofprotectedareas Calculatehabitatfromfractionalcover per PFT andbiomass

  15. Multi-model ESS projection Please add!

  16. Ecosystem Services: further options Regulation of Flooding regulationoffloodingaschange in regularflooding= |meanareaofflooding in km2 (1990-2009) - floodedarea in km2| Which DGVM otherthanLPJmLcanprovidebasin-widedata? Interesting for stakeholder dialogue? Land suitable for indigenous lifestyles areaofheavilydegraded ES in areasprotectedforindigenouspeople = protectedarea – areawithdecreasebytwo „degradationclasses“ Overlaywithcurrentshape-files ofprotectedareas Calculatehabitatfromfractionalcover per PFT andbiomass

More Related